City of St. Louis v. Herthel

• Decision Date: 04 December 1883
• Citation: 14 Mo.App. 467
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent, v. JOHN W. HERTHEL, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

14 Mo.App. 467

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent,

v.JOHN W. HERTHEL, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 4, 1883.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, NOONAN, J.

Affirmed.

KLEIN & FISSE, for the appellant: Architects are not named in the enumeration of pursuits which are subject to be licensed. Neither are they embraced within the general words following the particular enumeration; for it is uniformly held that wherever general words follow particular words of description, the general words do not enlarge the prior particular words, but are restricted in their application to classes similar to those particularly designated.--Sedgw. on Stat. Con. 423; Potter's Dwar. Stat. 236; City of St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; Butler's Appeal,73 Pa. St. 458; Drake v. Phillips, 40 Ill. 388; Wright v. Norwich, etc., Transfer Co., 8 Blatchf. 22.

ASHLEY CLOVER, for the respondent: An architect, whose profession is certainly a learned one, is a member of the same genus, is ejusdem generis, with a lawyer, doctor, etc., although in many respects there is no resemblance between the occupations.-- Butler's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 448; Whitmore v. Bedford, 5 M. & G. 13; Regina v. Reid, 28 Eng. L. & E. 133; Woodworth v. The State, 26 Ohio St. 196; Foster v. Blount, 18 Ala. 687; United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch (U. S.), 358; The State v. Williams, 2 Strobh. (S. C.) 474; The State v. Holman, 3 McCord, 306.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was convicted of violation of Article 20, chapter 37, of the revised ordinances of St. Louis, in this, that he carried on the business of an architect in St. Louis without having obtained a license. On trial anew in the court of criminal correction, the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts; and the defendant was again convicted.

The only question presented for our consideration is as to the validity of the ordinance, the first section of which is as follows: “It shall not be lawful for any person to exercise within this city the business of a money broker, advertising agent, architect, bill poster, claim agent, conveyancer, civil engineer and surveyor, engraver, lithographer, loan agent, mercantile agent, oculist and aurist, patent solicitor, photographer, sewing machine agent, veterinary surgeon, or keep a billiard table, nine or ten-pin alley, shuffle-board or bagatelle table, or to own, conduct, or manage for gain, a theater or other exhibition, show or amusement, without a license therefor.”

It is contended by the appellant that, under the city charter, the municipal assembly has no authority to levy a tax upon the privilege of exercising the profession of an architect. This is the only objection urged here against the conviction, and the only point that is presented for our consideration.

Under the charter, the mayor and assembly have power within the city, by ordinance not inconsistent with the constitution or any law of the State or of the charter (sect. 26, Art. III., subd. 5): “ Fifth. To license, tax, and regulate lawyers, doctors, doctresses, undertakers, dentists, auctioneers, grocers, merchants, retailers, hotels, boarding houses, tenement houses, office buildings, public buildings, public halls, public grounds, photographists, artists, agents, porters, runners, drummers, public lecturers, public meetings and shows, real estate agents and brokers, financial agents and brokers, horse and cattle dealers, patent right dealers, inspectors and gaugers, stock-yard proprietors, examiners of titles, conveyancers, mercantile agents, insurance companies and insurance agents, bankers, banking or other banking corporations or institutions, telegraph companies or corporations, street railroad cars, livery and sale stables, hackney carriages, private carriages, barouches, buggies, wagons, omnibuses, carts, drays, and other vehicles, and all other business, trades, avocations, or professions whatever; to fix the rates for carriage of persons, and of wagonage, drayage, and cartage of property, and regulate the width of the tires of all vehicles for heavy transportation; to license, regulate, tax or suppress ordinaries, hawkers, peddlers, brokers, pawn-brokers, money changers, intelligence offices, public masquerade balls, street exhibitions, dance houses, fortune tellers, pistol galleries, lottery ticket dealers, corn doctors, lock, private and venereal hospitals, museums and menageries, equestrian performances, horoscopic views, lung testers, muscle developers, magnifying glasses, billiard tables, or any other table or instrument used for amusement; circuses, operatic, theatrical, and other exhibitions, shows, and amusements; saloons, beer houses, tippling houses, dramshops and gift enterprises; and to suppress prize fights, coon fighting, dog fights, chicken cock fights, gaming or gambling houses; and to suppress bawdy and disorderly houses, houses of ill-fame and assignation; to provide for and enforce the registration of all births, marriages, or deaths; to license, tax, regulate or suppress all occupations, professions and trades not heretofore enumerated, of whatever name and character.”

It is agreed that the number of architects in St. Louis is about one hundred.

It was held in City v. Laughlin (49 Mo. 559), that the charter of St. Louis, of March 4, 1870, then in force, gave no power to the city to levy a tax upon attorneys at law. The language of that...